DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heat exchanger system” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,097,203. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘203 patent are the more limited of the two sets of claims requiring a knockout drum, and it is therefore held obvious to claim the less limited instant invention, however the ‘203 patent claims do not require the separator in fluid communication with the ejector that separates the ejector two-phase stream into another vapor distillate stream and the liquid distillate stream, however upon consideration of routine skill the skilled artisan understands a knockout drum is a type of separator and therefore it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and constructional design choice to choose the more generic separator versus the knockout drum and claim the separated stream via constructional design choice without unexpected results.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,097,203. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘203 patent are the more limited of the two sets of claims requiring a knockout drum, and it is therefore held obvious to claim the less limited instant invention, however the ‘203 patent claims do not require the separator in fluid communication with the ejector that separates the ejector two-phase stream into another vapor distillate stream and the liquid distillate stream, however upon consideration of routine skill the skilled artisan understands a knockout drum is a type of separator and therefore it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and constructional design choice to choose the more generic separator versus the knockout drum and claim the separated stream via constructional design choice without unexpected results.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘360 patent are the more limited of the two sets of claims requiring a knockout drum, and it is therefore held obvious to claim the less limited instant invention, however the ‘360 patent claims do not require the separator in fluid communication with the ejector that separates the ejector two-phase stream into another vapor distillate stream and the liquid distillate stream, however upon consideration of routine skill the skilled artisan understands a knockout drum is a type of separator and therefore it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and constructional design choice to choose the more generic separator versus the knockout drum and claim the separated stream via constructional design choice without unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if a timely-filed, properly executed Terminal Disclaimer were submitted to overcome the obviousness type double patenting rejection set forth above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance and indicated allowance:
Considering claims 1, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a system for treating a raw wastewater feed stream, comprising: a heat exchanger to heat a wastewater stream and create a two-phase stream; a column in fluid communication with the heat exchanger for separating the two-phase stream into a vapor stream and a concentrated liquid stream; an ejector in fluid communication with the column for combining the vapor distillate stream from the column and a liquid distillate stream to produce an ejector two-phase stream; a separator in fluid communication with the ejector that separates the ejector two-phase stream into another vapor distillate stream and the liquid distillate stream, wherein the vapor distillate stream and the another vapor distillate stream and in fluid communication.
Popov et al (US 2017/0057834) is regarded as the closest relevant prior art. Popov discloses a system (See Fig. 3) for treating a raw wastewater feed stream ("Raw water is input through in intake conduit (2)", para [0021]), comprising: a heat exchanger (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 4, para (0021]) to heat a wastewater stream and create a two-phase stream (See Fig. 3, the fluid is shown to flow initially through the heat exchanger, and is heated further later in the system and is routed back through the heat exchanger where the hot liquid can heat up the raw water that is initially input into the system.); a column (Fig. 3, evaporator 3, para [0021]) in fluid communication with the heat exchanger (See Fig. 3, the column is shown directly after the heat exchanger.) for separating the two-phase stream into a vapor stream and a concentrated liquid stream (See Fig. 3, the fluid may exit through either vapor outlet port 3B or waster port 3C, therefore separating the two-phase stream); an ejector (Fig. 3, ejector 5, para [0021]) in fluid communication with the column (Fig. 3, the ejector is shown directly after the column.); a separator (Fig. 3, accumulator 18, para [0022]) in fluid communication with the ejector (Fig. 3, the separator is shown directly after the ejector.); a pump (Fig. 3, pump 6, para [0021]) in fluid communication with the knockout drum (See Fig. 3, the pump is shown in fluid communication with the knockout drum.) to convey the high temperature liquid stream from the knockout drum to the ejector (See Fig. 3, the pump is shown to pump fluid back to the ejector.); however, the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest in combination the ejector combining the vapor stream from the column and a high temperature liquid stream to produce an ejector two-phase stream, the knockout drum separating the ejector two phase stream into a hot vapor stream and the high temperature liquid stream, and a degasser in fluid communication with and positioned downstream from the heat exchanger for collecting the hot vapor stream leaving the heat exchanger and producing a distillate stream.
Considering claim 12, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed method for treating a raw wastewater feed stream, comprising: heating a wastewater stream to create a two-phase stream; separating the two-phase stream into a vapor stream and a concentrated liquid stream; combining the vapor stream and a high temperature liquid stream to produce another two phase stream with a temperature higher than that of the vapor stream, wherein the liquid distillate stream is recirculated through a column, a distillate tank and an ejector; separating the another two-phase stream into a hot vapor stream and the high temperature liquid stream.
Popov is regarded as the closest relevant prior art, Popov discloses a method for treating a raw wastewater feed stream ("Raw water is input through in intake conduit (2)", para (0021]), comprising: heating a wastewater stream (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 4, para [0021] - See Fig. 3, the fluid is shown to flow initially through the heat exchanger, and is heated further later in the system and is routed back through the heat exchanger where the hot liquid can heat up the raw water that is initially input into the system.); separating the stream into a vapor stream and a concentrated liquid stream (Fig. 3, evaporator 3, para (0021] - See Fig. 3, the fluid may exit through either vapor outlet port 3B or waster port 3C, therefore separating the two-phase stream); combining the vapor stream and a liquid stream to produce another stream (Fig. 3, ejector 5, para [0021]. See Fig. 3, the ejector is shown to combine the vapor stream and a fluid stream from the pump.); separating the another stream into a hot vapor stream and the high temperature liquid stream (Fig. 3, accumulator 18, para [0022], See Fig. 3, high temperature liquid is shown to exit the accumulator at 18B, and vapor exits at 18C.); and producing a distillate stream (See Fig. 3, purified water product 8, para [0019]); however, the Popov does not teach nor fairly suggest in combination heating a wastewater stream to create a two-phase stream; separating the two-phase stream into a vapor stream and a concentrated liquid stream; combining the vapor stream and a high temperature liquid stream to produce another two phase stream with a temperature higher than that of the vapor stream; separating the another two-phase stream into a hot vapor stream and the high temperature liquid stream; and condensing the hot vapor stream.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Cited in the related application related to the claims are also cited herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on (571) 272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights